The author is a Forbes contributor. The opinions expressed are those of the writer.

Loading ...

Loading ...

This story appears in the {{article.article.magazine.pretty_date}} issue of {{article.article.magazine.pubName}}. Subscribe

Image via CrunchBase

Google (GOOG) is building a network of glass right to people's houses. But some broadband experts believe that Google is spending too much money to build the ultimately money-losing network. Moreover, consumers can get similar network speeds through DSL and WiFi -- with a much lower investment.

In case you missed it, Google is building a network of fiber optic cables to houses in Kansas City. Its goal is to deliver broadband service that's 100 times faster than the competition in "symmetric 1 gigabit connections to households across the city," according to TechCrunch. The service will also include lots of storage -- 1 terabyte worth -- and HDTV service.

And Google Fiber will be competitive on price. As it announced, July 26, consumers will pay $300 for installation, $120 a month for the entire package, and $70 a month just for the Internet service.

Too bad there's such a huge gap between the promise and the reality. According to TechCrunch, Google is breaking Kansas City into 250 to 1,500 “fiberhoods” and asked people to pre-register. It will decide where to start building in September 2012 -- based in part on how many sign up in each fiberhood and how close they are too each other.

Google estimates that by mid-2013 it will be able to reach around half the fiberhoods and will complete the process by the end of 2013. But John Cioffi, the CEO of ASSIA -- its software boosts service quality for digital subscriber line (DSL) customers, former Stanford professor and world-expert on DSL -- told me in an August 13 interview that he's skeptical.

After all, Cioffi points out that in the United States, fiber to the home (FTTH) costs at least $2,500 per customer according to a 2010 FCC report, and April 2011's Rural Telecom Magazine is among those that report much higher costs of up to $6,000 per customer in rural areas.

According to Cioffi, "Considerable doubt exists among telco experts on the $2,500 per customer being realistic, especially when the costs of gaining access rights, dealing with governments and property owners, and the cost in time and money of rising labor installation costs are truly and fully included."

Moreover, he notes, a March 2011 Business Week article reported that Verizon's (VZ) FTTH programs "resulted in an unrecoverable $800 per customer loss."

By Cioffi's reckoning, even at $120 a month, there is no way that Google will be able to breakeven. In his telecom industry experience, $700 per subscriber was always the investment ceiling that telcos used to provide broadband service to a subscriber, based on the monthly fee subscribers were willing to pay. As Cioffi put it mildly, "it would surprise me if they can break even."

Cioffi is not alone in his assessment. After all, FTTH authority, Neal Lachman, wrote in SeekingAlpha, that it would cost as much as $500 billion and could take a decade to connect all the houses and commercial buildings in the U.S. to fiber.